The property is a two-storey
detached house. The application included a proposed two-storey rear extension, the ground floor of which would
have had depth 4m, and the first floor of which would have had depth 3m.

The first key issue was
whether the proposed rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(f), which states that “Development is
not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and … (i)
extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres”.

The appellant argued that
there is a “fall back” scenario, in that Class A, part A.1(f) would allow him to erect a two-storey extension
with depth 3m, and then subsequently Class A, part A.1(e) would allow him to extend the ground floor of this
extension by an additional metre to depth 4m.

The Inspector disagreed, and
stated that this “fall back” position is not relevant. He stated that the proposed development would be a
“single operation”, and that Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict both storeys to a depth of
3m.

Main
Conclusions:

·Where it is proposed to erect a
two-storey rear extension, Class A, part A.1(f) would restrict both storeys to a depth of 3m. It
therefore is not possible on a detached property to erect (as a single operation) a two-storey rear
extension that has a ground floor with depth 4m and a first floor with depth 3m.[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“A.1(f)”].[Relevant to:
A.1(f)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):